WotC Mike Mearls: "D&D Is Uncool Again"

Monster_Manual_Traditional_Cover_Art_copy.webp


In Mike Mearls' recent interview with Ben Riggs, he talks about how he feels that Dungeons & Dragons has had its moment, and is now uncool again. Mearls was one of the lead designers of D&D 5E and became the franchise's Creative Director in 2018. He worked at WotC until he was laid off in 2023. He is now EP of roleplaying games at Chaosium, the publisher of Call of Chulhu.

My theory is that when you look back at the OGL, the real impact of it is that it made D&D uncool again. D&D was cool, right? You had Joe Manganiello and people like that openly talking about playing D&D. D&D was something that was interesting, creative, fun, and different. And I think what the OGL did was take that concept—that Wizards and this idea of creativity that is inherent in the D&D brand because it's a roleplaying game, and I think those two things were sundered. And I don’t know if you can ever put them back together.

I think, essentially, it’s like that phrase: The Mandate of Heaven. I think fundamentally what happened was that Wizards has lost the Mandate of Heaven—and I don’t see them even trying to get it back.

What I find fascinating is that it was Charlie Hall who wrote that article. This is the same Charlie Hall who wrote glowing reviews of the 5.5 rulebooks. And then, at the same time, he’s now writing, "This is your chance because D&D seems to be stumbling." How do you square that? How do I go out and say, "Here are the two new Star Wars movies. They’re the best, the most amazing, the greatest Star Wars movies ever made. By the way, Star Wars has never been weaker. Now is the time for other sci-fi properties", like, to me that doesn’t make any sense! To me, it’s a context thing again.

Maybe this is the best Player’s Handbook ever written—but the vibes, the audience, the people playing these games—they don’t seem excited about it. We’re not seeing a groundswell of support and excitement. Where are the third-party products? That’s what I'd ask. Because that's what you’d think, "oh, there’s a gap", I mean remember before the OGL even came up, back when 3.0 launched, White Wolf had a monster book. There were multiple adventures at Gen Con. The license wasn’t even official yet, and there were already adventures showing up in stores. We're not seeing that, what’s ostensibly the new standard going forward? If anything, we’re seeing the opposite—creators are running in the opposite direction. I mean, that’s where I’m going.

And hey—to plug my Patreon—patreon.com/mikemearls (one word). This time last year, when I was looking at my post-Wizards options, I thought, "Well, maybe I could start doing 5E-compatible stuff." And now what I’m finding is…I just don’t want to. Like—it just seems boring. It’s like trying to start a hair metal band in 1992. Like—No, no, no. Everyone’s mopey and we're wearing flannel. It's Seattle and rain. It’s Nirvana now, man. It’s not like Poison. And that’s the vibe I get right now, yeah, Poison was still releasing albums in the ’90s. They were still selling hundreds of thousands or a million copies. But they didn’t have any of the energy. It's moved on. But what’s interesting to me is that roleplaying game culture is still there. And that’s what I find fascinating about gaming in general—especially TTRPGs. I don’t think we’ve ever had a period where TTRPGs were flourishing, and had a lot of energy and excitement around them, and D&D wasn’t on the upswing. Because I do think that’s what’s happening now. We’re in very strange waters where I think D&D is now uncool.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

It's fairly common for adventure games (e.g. the Secret of Monkey Island) to not have a definite fail state. You may or may not come to a place where you can't figure out how to proceed, but that doesn't mean the path does not exist.

(Technically, The Secret of Monkey Island does have the possibility of character death, but that actually takes some doing by the player. Or rather, not doing for 10 minutes at a particular point in the game.)
Getting stuck in Monkey Island because I no longer have access to an item that turns out to be vital to finish the game (a situation I have experienced personally) tells me there's at least one fail state. As far as video games go, any game where you go back to an earlier save or start over counts as a fail state IMO.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


It's fairly common for adventure games (e.g. the Secret of Monkey Island) to not have a definite fail state.
I consider not completing the game and solving the secret a fail state. You (almost) cannot die in it, but you can definitely fail, even if theoretically you can still complete the game if you ever figured out what you were missing to continue progressing
 

If people sit around a campfire telling a story in sequence as they go the outcome isn't fixed either. Is that a game? I really don't think so personally.
It's improvisation to be sure. An exorcise in story telling. I'm also sure you can find people who would call it a game.
As there are not really any rules or stated outcome (points gained in a time frame as an example) I wouldn't consider it a game as such. But now you're getting into "depends on your definition" territory and that friend is not a game I engage in. 🧐
 




So agreeing with Mearls or the general idea that the game has reduced risk too much means you should move on and shut up? So only one side can be part of the discussion, and it is not even the side which 'started it' (by Mearls' post being copied in here)?

Maybe just accept that people can disagree and that a discussion kinda requires more than people congratulating themselves over and over for how great their opinion is


I didn't tell anyone to shut up, I asked a question. I don't care how you play the game and have repeatedly stated so. That doesn't mean I can't disagree with someone calling another person's style of gaming time-wasting slop.
 

I gave up after the first season because I realized that (a) it was an "anyone can die so there's no point in actually getting too involved in them" show and (b) most of the characters were jerks.

ETA: By "anyone can die" I mean that shows like this tend to treat character death as a ratings grab more than anything. "Oh, the story's getting a bit stale, let's be shocking and kill a character!" I find those type of things very dull.

I kind of have the same feeling towards high lethality games. If my character can die at any moment they're going to have less meaning to me. Which ironically then means that I don't care if they die and their death no longer becomes a high stakes affair.
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top